Posted on 04/13/2006 12:18:35 PM PDT by Senator Bedfellow
Hardly. Suppose he got his degree in the 50's. During this time the DNA double helix was discovered. The discovery of the structure of DNA cast great light on the process of evolution. If he got his degree in the 50's he may have learned a good amount about biochemistry, but nothing about genetics. We have made immense advances in genetics since this time, so a person who finished his education 50 years ago would need to do a lot of independent reading to catch up. Even in the 60's things were just starting to get on a roll in this field.
If you don't realize this and if you really think we're just sitting around making up lies, I suppose you don't really know anything about science either.
There are reports that someone artificially inseminated a female chimpanzee with human sperm in the early 1900's, resulting in the live birth of a hybrid infant, but this is uncorrobated. It's possible that humans and chimpanzees could produce live young on occasion. There's a slight chromosome number difference to overcome--48 instead of 46 for chimps. However, no one's about to try this experiment for ethical reasons.
Your dog analogy is only useful for comparing to the existence of different races among humans since it involves interbreeding among members of the same species.
No it didn't, it said canids produced dogs. There are and have been many species of canids.
Those were, no doubt, cast replicas of the bones and skeletal fragments that were found.
,,,,Those were, no doubt, cast replicas of the bones and skeletal fragments that were found........
Possibly, it was at least 20 years ago, but as I recall they were real, part of a special exhibit of short duration. I have a clear memory of the heavy glass cases containing the exhibit.
[Obviously further research is warranted :)]
Perhaps it is the hobbit Sam Wise of middle earch lore.
Do you have an example of an established scientific law that was once an unproven theory?
[My life doesn't revolve around evolution (although it depends on it, just as your life does). I just find it distressing that so many ignorant people are doing so much to hinder the scientific education of so many by propogating silly counter-factual strawmen.]
One day you and others like you will find out that the so called science you believe is a fabricated lie that you choose to believe without question. The fable of evolution, the fable of man being responsinle for the fabrication of the lie to destroy mankind called global warming (the sun is warming up, that is why the polar ice caps are melting on Mars also), the fable of second hand smoke causing so many diseases, etc. are all schemes cooked up by those liberal, wealthy facists of the left wing persuision who have been and continue to assault the Christian faith. It is a war the atheists will lose at the battle of Jeezreel during the tribulation sorrows when all nations will fight against Israel's God and our God, Jesus the Christ.
Until then, deceivers will wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. As the scriptures say;
2 Timothy 4:
Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
and
2 Timothy 1
Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
Yes! Sarah's older brother Johnny was the real-life model for the kid in Jack Chick's "Big Daddy." As a grad student working on his thesis, he disappeared shortly after he intimated to her that startling facts were turning up in his researches about Piltdown Man. Was he getting too close to a prized secret guarded by a ruthless and desperate conspiracy? Sarah will never rest until she has the truth.
It provides accurate, objective benchmarks for stratigraphy. Not every rock sample can be dated. But we can date enough to anchor the stratigraphic layers in hard numbers.
How reliable is radioactive dating? Done properly, it's very reliable. It's based on a well-understood, physical rate that is completely invariant.
Would it be likely that flooding, an ice age, a meteor strike...any type of catastrophic occurrences over a large or small area...affect the outcome of this type of dating?
It's not just unlikely, it's impossible.
Let's take uranium/lead dating of zircons, for example. Zircons are tiny crystals of zirconium silicate. They occur widely in igneous rocks. uranium is chemically very similar to zirconium, and so in any zircon, a small percentage of the zircon is replaced by uranium. Uranium has two long lived isotopes, each of which ultimately gives rise to a different unradioactive daughter isotope. Both isotopes, 235U and 238U have an accurately known half-life and decay rate which are determined entirely by the properties of the nucleus itself and therefore unaffected by the environment. 238U decays to 206Pb, while 235U decays to 207Pb. Lead is not chemically similar to zirconium, and so lead does not naturally co-crystallize int eh zirconium silicate lattice; it gets there only by radioactive decay of uranium. if we measure the ratio of the lead isotopes to the uranium isotopes, you can directly get the date the zircon was formed.
It has been proven that Lucy was a well traind pick pocket.
I see I'm going to have to trademark the PiltDown Conspiracy before Spielberg gets to it.
You can impregnate humans, but you can't impregnate other apes, just as gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orang utans are themselves each reproductively isolated communities. They are seperate species, but all are apes.
Really? Science is a lie? Sorry, but I'm happy with the germ theory of disease -- it's suited me quite well.
The fable of evolution, the fable of man being responsinle for the fabrication of the lie to destroy mankind called global warming (the sun is warming up, that is why the polar ice caps are melting on Mars also), the fable of second hand smoke causing so many diseases, etc. are all schemes cooked up by those liberal, wealthy facists of the left wing persuision who have been and continue to assault the Christian faith.
Congratulations! You have entered the world of self parody.
It is a war the atheists will lose at the battle of Jeezreel during the tribulation sorrows when all nations will fight against Israel's God and our God, Jesus the Christ.
I know it's a tangent, you have to understand this is purely self interest, but where do the Jews stand in all of this?
Forum sites are so interesting the amount of vitriol is truly outstanding.
To the person who asked why I have not responded: I have a practice to run, I’m typing between patients.
My first line was “For anyone who cares” I certainly realize that there are those that will not care or will not believe me. (This is a forum site – I could make up anything that I wanted.) The purpose for mentioning them is that there are many reading the forum that my not realize that there are scientists that do not believe in the Theory of Evolution. Of course my credentials do not make me an expert on the Theory of Evolution. Do yours? I offered my credentials, I have yet to hear anyone offer theirs. If you have to be a paleontologist or taxonomist in order to hold an opinion on the Theory of Evolution then what are we all doing here talking about this?
Someone criticized my “observation or experimentation” statement and compared it to historical research. There is a world of difference between proving that someone or something existed in history and proving something in science.
As a physician I deal with scientific studies all the time. (I’m a family and occupational physician for anyone who cares) Does drug X treat disease Y? Does chemical Z cause cancer? Does test W help us diagnose disease V with accuracy? The good studies take an observation or even an educated guess by a biochemical engineer and test it. It requires large numbers of subjects and a placebo controlled randomized methodology for the medical community to accept the investigators theory as fact. Even then errors occur. We thought that Vioxx was a safe drug. Now we know its not so safe. We thought that estrogen replacement therapy prevented heart disease. Better studies have taught us otherwise. My point is that even with modern techniques using the best methods available we have difficulty proving with a high degree of accuracy many many theories. So now I have people trying to convince me that you can take some fossils and extrapolate from them an explanation for the diversification of species and the origins of man?
In the realm of scientific proof (by the way I should not have used the word “law” in my original post, those who pointed that out are correct on that point – my apologies) (Damn it Jim I’m a doctor not a writer!!) or accepting a theory as fact with a high degree of confidence you need direct observation or experimentation. If I observe a caterpillar spin a cocoon and change into a butterfly, I can state with a high degree of confidence that a caterpillar can metamorphosize into a butterfly. I do not need to experiment unless I am testing theories on how that process occurs. If I had never seen that metamorphosis I could not prove that metamorphosis occurred by looking at the fossil of a caterpillar and the fossil of a butterfly. The Theory of Evolution is very weak because no direct observation is ever possible only conjecture. My other tool is experimentation. If someone could tell my how to take a single celled organism in the lab and turn it into a fruit fly I would love to hear it.
We could spend lots of time arguing over the fossil record or dating methods. We could line up all sorts of “experts” on both sides to use as cannon fodder. We could compare our lists of books with one another or attack one another’s credentials.(I fully expect that someone will call into question my intelligence and pick apart everything that I’ve written) I’m about typed out and I have patients waiting so I’m going to close out. If anyone is interested here are some books that I think are very thought provoking.
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Paperback)
by Michael J. Behe
Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (Hardcover)
by John Wilson (Foreword), William A. Dembski (Editor)
You mean zebras evolved in space and parachuted to Earth? What am I supposed to do with that approach in the absence of any evidence to support it?
You are saying the earth is the center of the universe...
I am? I really don't think so.
Atheist to evolutinists: you're worse.
Uh, ok.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.